A friend of mine on Facebook (that is, a real friend who happens to also be on Facebook) just posted a comment about a link I shared concerning Julian Assange and Wikileaks. His view of the situation (and Julian’s future) are understandably grim. However, the news isn’t quite as dark as you might think. Here is my reply to him:
————————-
Don’t be too sure it’s all that easy for the bad guys. There are a LOT of issues at stake here, and a LOT of organizations unconnected to Wikileaks realize their livelihoods are at stake too. Various big players are raising their heads now, some against and some FOR Julian. As we speak, the Australian government is in turmoil as pro-Wikileaks members of Parliament are beginning to rebel against the anti-Wikileaks Prime Minister. Other governments are becoming polarized as well – including America and Britain, though much more quietly.
The media community also realizes they are in danger. If Julian goes down, they are ALL going to be subject to the precedents and any new laws created to get him. Never before in American history has a media outlet been prosecuted for releasing information that was acquired (even illegally) by another party. (For example: the Pentagon Papers.) So the media will fight if the government tries to prosecute someone for it now.
Same goes for any organizations that focus on human rights, free speech, democracy, etc, etc. To take down Wikileaks, the very basis of freedom of speech has to be destroyed. They will all unify to fight that.
Then there are big companies like Paypal, Mastercard, Visa, Amazon, etc. These guys have exposed themselves as tools of a corrupt system, and they are suffering accordingly. Visa and Mastercard are likely going to have their licenses to do business suspended in Iceland. And several companies that served as proxies for Wikileaks donations are preparing to sue Visa (at least).
And THEN there are the hoards of cyber-activists out there, such as Project Payback that arose from Anonymous. Project Payback decided to target any company, government or bank that attempts to censor or stop Wikileaks – and they have shut down websites from Paypal to government offices to international banks. Even outside of the “hacktivists”, there are people out there that have mirrored Wikileaks, offered them server space (such as Pirate Bay!) and otherwise made it all but impossible to ever remove from the Internet the information that Wikileaks has put out there.
And, last but certainly not least, there is the Insurance File. Before Wikileaks began this global campaign, they sent out a massive encrypted file to anyone and everyone who wanted a copy. It is called “Insurance.” Julian has stated that the information contained therein would be akin to a political thermonuclear bomb- and the key to decrypt it will be released automatically the moment Julian or anyone connected with Wikileaks is harmed.
We are witnessing the First Global Cyber-War. And it looks like Wikileaks might win this one.
Ananael (The Secrets of Wisdom) 
Here is an article that I recommend which (imo) gives a balanced view on the impacts of Wikileaks: http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20101213-taking-stock-wikileaks
LikeLike
Thanks for the link, Simon
Reading through this, I can’t say I agree it is “balanced.” In fact, it contains all of the main talking points of the “official” US position on the matter:
1) The idea that there is “nothing new or surprising” in the leaked documents. The US Government has held that position from the start. This article further suggests that “only the uninformed would be surprised by this information”, apparently missing the point that the uninformed are exactly who Wikileaks is trying to reach (because the mainstream media certainly refuses to do so). Meanwhile, officials in the US and elsewhere continue to call for the murder of Julian Assange for revealing information they say wasn’t new in the first place. Orwellian Doublespeak.
2) The belief that exposing the diplomatic cables merely makes diplomacy impossible, thereby fostering more war and ultimately harming all countries involved. Again, a position strongly held by the US Government. However, this position (and the article) entirely ignores the fact that illegal wars and acts of aggression are taking place around the world *because* of the secrets these diplomats are allowed to keep. This is ultimately similar to the claim- made by those who perpetuate warfare across the globe- that Julian Assange is somehow the one with “blood on his hands.” If War is Peace then it seems Peace is War, too.
3) Then the article begins to perform back flips of logic to imply that – just maybe – Julian is guilty of espionage. It even goes so far as to suggest the mere existence of Wikileaks may imply guilt on Assange’s part in the acquisition of the documents. (As if the same claim couldn’t be made of newspapers. Doesn’t their mere existence imply an invitation to publish leaked documents?)
4) It even tosses in a jab about Assange being “wanted for rape” – which is an outright lie.
Simon, this article represents the “con” side of the Wikileaks debate, not a balanced overview of both sides. In fact, it looks to me like it is 100% pro-Establishment and its author well versed in Orwellian philosophy.
LikeLike
Thanks for taking the time to read the article. I’m not an expert on Geopolitics, but in reply to your comments.
1) Totally agree that Wikileaks has made it easier for the uninformed to find out this information.
2) That’s not how I understood the article. The point I thought it was making is that secrecy in diplomacy is required to negotiating peace in a war. However, I agree with your point that the article does not make mention of how secrecy has also been used to promote war.
3) I’ll wait for a court to decide if he’s guilty of any crimes or not. Everything until then is in my opinion speculation.
4) Same as 3). The article’s author holds the same view: “Whether he committed any crime, including rape, is something I have no idea about.”
My experience of Stratfor.com is that the articles should be taken with a pinch of salt, but are a useful source for finding information of news in historical & geopolitical context that is often not included in mainstream media.
LikeLike